“date of transfer”

Capital GainsSection 2(47)Section 2(47)965 judgments

The decision most relied on for date of transfer is CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini (398 ITR 531), cited in 228 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on date of transfer

CIT v. Balbir Singh Maini

398 ITR 531 · 2017 · Supreme Court

228

citing judgments

A transfer of immovable property, for the purpose of capital gains under section 2(47)(v) of the Income-tax Act, occurs only when the agreement allowing possession in part performance of a contract is a registered instrument, as mandated by Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia v. CIT

260 ITR 491 · 2003 · High Court

150

citing judgments

For capital gains purposes, a 'transfer' under section 2(47)(v) occurs and capital gains arise in the year when possession of the property is handed over in part performance of a contract, such as a joint development agreement. This was the settled position before the specific provisions of section 45(5A) were introduced.

Sanjeev Lal v. CIT

365 ITR 389 · 2014 · Supreme Court

122

citing judgments

For claiming capital gains exemption under beneficial provisions like section 54, the 'date of transfer' can be the date of the agreement to sell, particularly when coupled with substantial advance consideration or an enforceable right, adopting a purposive and liberal interpretation to acknowledge the assessee's intent.

Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana

340 ITR 1 · 2012 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

A transfer of immovable property by way of sale is legally valid only through a duly stamped and registered deed of conveyance. Unregistered instruments like agreements to sell, General Power of Attorney, or wills do not transfer title or create an interest in the property.

CIT v. T.K. Dayalu

202 Taxmann 531 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

In a Joint Development Agreement (JDA), capital gains arise for chargeability to tax when the complete control over the property is passed to the developer, with the date of such transfer of control being relevant for determining the assessment year. This includes considerations of possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.

PCIT v. Swananda Properties (P.) Ltd.

111 Taxmann.com 94 · 2019 · High Court

citing judgments

Prior to the incorporation of the proviso to section 43CA(1) with effect from 1st April 2019, section 43CA did not envisage any limit regarding the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual sale consideration received by the assessee for the transfer of immovable property that was stock-in-trade.

CIT v. Ashaland Corporation

133 ITR 55 · 1982 · High Court

citing judgments

Income from the sale of immovable property, including any 'on-money' component, is taxable only when the sale is complete, marked by the execution and registration of the sale deed and/or transfer of possession to the buyer.

CIT v. R.L. Sood

245 ITR 727 · 2000 · High Court

citing judgments

Exemption under Section 54 for capital gains on a residential property is available even if the sale deed is not registered within the stipulated time, provided a substantial amount of consideration is paid, or the delay in completion/registration is beyond the assessee's control.

Judgments citing date of transfer

Smt. Janki Kishan Hingorani, Rajkot vs. The Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 56/RJT/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar(Conducted Through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt.Janki Kishan Hingorani The Pr.Cit 6/7, Subham Complex Rajkot-1 Royal Park, University Road बनाम/ Rajkot Rajkot – 380 006 Vs. Gujarat (Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Pan: Pan : Aahph 4774M Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ld.Ar Revenue By Shri Shramdeep Sinha, Ld.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 06/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/12/2023

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54F

this sub-section shall apply where— (a) the assessee,— (i) owns70 more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date ... original asset; or (iii) 71constructs any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of three years after the date of transfer of the original asset; and (b) the income from such residential house, other than the one residential house owned on the date of transfer

Shri Babubhai Naranbhai Sakhiya, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Pr. Commr. of Income Tax-1, Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/RJT/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot15 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 45(3)Section 54B

follows: “…..6. The assessee's submission has been carefully examined. In para 3 of the submission the assessee has contended that the actual date of transfer of the capital asset was 15.08.2010 and due to typographical mistake it was mentioned as 15.04.2010. The assessee has thus contended that the land ... statement of total income forming part of the return of income, the assessee has given a working of the capital gain wherein the date of transfer of capital asset is mentioned as 15.04.2010. As regards the contention that during the course of the assessment proceedings working of capital gain

DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2446/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Appeals Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 8(2) was reduced to Rs.22,28,61,109/- as on the date of transfer. However, the AO has not agreed with the submission of the assessee and stated that entire business of Mandideep was sold as a going concern ... assets to be taken at Rs.68.05 crore and not at Rs.101.365 crores by taking the transfer value of working capital on the date of transfer. The relevant extract of the decision of the ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “xv. The appellant has in ground X1 raised the contention

Procter & Gamble Hygine & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1735/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hyginene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3566/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3518/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Cir. 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2277/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2167/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Ramesh S Shah, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, CC-5(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 294/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhramesh S. Shah Vs. The Dcit, 203, A Wing Peninsula Central Circle -5(3) Corporate Park Ganpatrao Room No. 1906, 19Th Kadam Marg, Floor, Air India Building Lower Parel, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400013 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aagps9863H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishit Gandhi Respondent By : Agnes P. Thomas Date Of Hearing 29.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.12.2023

For Appellant: Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Agnes P. Thomas

Section 143(2)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(2)

plastering etc, therefore, the value adopted by the stamp valuation authority exceeded the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer. In view of these the assessee requested that the price received by him on the date of transfer was full and fair, therefore, the stamp ... adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under subsection (1) exceed the fair market value of the property as on date of transfer the assessing officer has to refer the valuation of the capital asset to the valuation officer. However, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 6589/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(9)Section 80HSection 92C

date. The difference (INR 4,25,44,104/-) between the actual liability and the net present value of the said liability on the date of transfer was accounted for and included in Schedule 'L' under the heads "Gains on extinguishment of debt’. The Appellant treated said gains as Capital receipt

Guruvendra Singh, Kota vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 548Section 54B

Appellant filed detailed reply but failed to prove that the investment was made in purchase of agricultural land within 2 years from the date of transfer of original asset. the exemption u/s 54B of Rs.1,47,42,303/- DEPARTME AD had disallowed the During the Appellant proceedings, the Appellant ... been able to demonstrate before me that the investment is made within the prescribed time limit of 2 years from the date of transfer of original asset. Therefore the exemption u/s 54B is not allowable. Therefore the addition of Rs.1,47,42,303/- is confirmed. The charging of interest

Pink City Arts and Crafts, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 7, Jaipur

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 428/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Harshit Agrawal(C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

though it constructed a factory building the same was not put to use since the business was not commenced even as on the date of transfer of property under reference i.e., 07.09.2015. The assessee further contended that investment made in construction of factory building was treated as long term investment

Zenzi Pharmaceutical Industies Pvt Ltd., Mumbai City vs. CIT (Transfer Pricing)-4, Mumbai City

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2005/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 68Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM

Zenzi Pharmaceutical Industies Pvt Ltd., Mumbai City vs. CIT (Transfer Pricing)-4, Mumbai City

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2004/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 68Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM

Zenzi Pharmaceutical Industies Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Transfer Pricing)-4, Mumbai

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2003/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 68Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM

Zenzi Pharmaceutical Industies Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. CIT (Transfer Pricing)-4, Mumbai

In the result all the four appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2002/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perumpura

Section 131Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 271BSection 68Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM

Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, Vapi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Vapi

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 581/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Dhirubhai Nanjibhai Kachchadia, I.T.O. Ward-2, B-9/83, Near Ambaji Temple, Vapi. Vs. Haria Hospital Road, Gidc, Vapi (Gujarat)-396395. Pan No. Acppk 1953 R Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 254(1)Section 50C(2)

therefore, the provision of Section 50C is attracted. We find that Assessing Officer made reference for DVO for valuation of assets on the date of transfer however, report of DVO was not received, the Assessing Officer brought the surplus earn to taxation under the head “short term capital gains

ITO Ward - 23(1), New Delhi vs. Sharp Eye Broadcasting Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1105/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey- & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia-

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

amount set apart for payment of dividends on preference shares and equity shares where such dividends have not been declared before the date of transfer at a general body meeting of the company; (iii) reserves and surplus, by whatever name called, even if the resulting figure is negative, other than

Satyaranjan Chand, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT Circle -2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 125/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Satyaranjan Satyaranjan Chand, Chand, Plot Vs. Dy. Dy. Commissioner Commissioner Of Of 3Rd No.Ga-722, 722, 3 Floor, Income Income Tax, Tax, Circle Circle-2(1), Kalinga Nagar, K Kalinga Nagar, K-3-B, Po: Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar. Ghatikia, Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aajpc 7891 A (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawal Walla, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/11 11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11 /11/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawal walla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

Section 263Section 54F

vacant plot. It was the submission that P a g e 2 | 8 Assessment Year : 2015-16 consequently, as on the date of transfer, the assessee did not own more than one residential house, the proviso to section 54F did not apply. Ld AR placed reliance on the decision ... revenue is also dismissed.” It was the submission that as the assessee did not own more than one residential house on the date of transfer of the property/asset, which gave rise to the long term capital gains, the assessee was entitled to claim of exemption u/s.54F. 4. In reply

Anil Shankar Palewar, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.36/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anil Shankar Palewar, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.219, Suyog Nagar, V Ward-5(1), Nagpur. Nagpur – 440015. S Pan: Abzpp 8221 A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Ar Revenue By Smt. Rashmi Mathur – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax[Nfac], Delhi Dated 26.12.2021Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Grossly Erred In Disallowing & The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Grossly Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Benefit Of Exemption Under Section 54Ec Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Claimed By The Appellant In His Return Of Income. The Exemption Under Section 54Ec Anil Shankar Palewar [A]

Section 250Section 54ESection 54F

Anil Shankar Palewar [A] shall be available if the investment in specified Bonds is made within a period of six months after the date of transfer of the capital asset which, in the present case, is 12.7.2005. The assessee has explained that he could not make the investments within ... months from the date of transfer, i.e. 12.7.2005 because the aforestated consideration was received on subsequent dates, namely, 12.12.2007, 14.5.2007, 19.6.2007 and 3.7.2007. A technical interpretation of section 54EC in this regard would imply that the exemption from tax on capital gains is not available qua the impugned investment